The subject line description exactly describes the Index
Test Box (ITB) for Kaplan turbines from Actuation Test Equipment Company. The
background narrative covers 25 years of activity, including three DOE Funded
field tests and purchase of two ITBs with DOE funds, all of which have been
deemed successful by government hydropower engineers. Why this instrument,
proven successful 23 years ago by a field test conducted by Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) hydropower specialists, and again in 2005 & 2006 by
USACE hydropower engineers is not in use today is left to the reader, this
letter is just telling you what happened and the opportunity still on the
table.

Background

All hydroelectric turbines should be optimized periodically by index testing to monitor and trend operating efficiency over time, to
maximize generated power & revenue and to minimize the harm done to
downstream-migrant marine life at turbine-passage. Variable pitch blades make
the benefits of optimization even greater for Kaplan hydroelectric turbines.
Determining the optimum head & gate to blade relationship and then
redefining the control system’s 3-D cam head & gate to blade data surface
profile will elevate a Kaplan turbine’s overall operating-efficiency envelope
and minimize environmental impact. What is being presented herein is a proven,
automatic data collection and analysis system especially designed for optimizing
Kaplan hydroelectric turbines. Doubly regulated Kaplans are the most complicated
and difficult hydroelectric units to optimize. Francis and Pelton turbines are
comparatively easier to optimize and well within the capability of the
demonstrated equipment.

BPA’s stated goal in 1987 was to test/demonstrate and
then acquire these instruments for use in Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS) to improve Snake and Columbia River powerplant operations. This offer
was declined by USACE Hydro Design Center (HDC), followed by an attempt to
duplicate the proven ITB at additional government expense instead of accepting
the “free” instruments that would have been purchased by DOE from Woodward. In
1990 HDC engineers submitted a test report about their “automated index testing system” to the same
DOE engineer that field-tested Woodward’s successful ITB for DOE. The dearth of
subsequent information on HDC’s project would indicate this government
boondoggle was unsuccessful.

In 1993, this author quit Woodward and started Actuation Test Equipment Company (ATECo) to continue development on the ITB for the hydropower
market as a new enterprise. Before the project was fully executed however, a
request from HDC came in - shortly after Woodward’s patent expired (HDC had been
watching it). This author received two solicitations from HDC seeking an updated
ITB on a sole-source contract.(Solicitation #1,
Solicitation #2.)

In 2004, an updated ITB was purchased from ATECo, field-tested and deemed successful (again); this time
by USACE engineers in a “proof of concept” test at McNary Dam in December 2005.
After a second parallel index-test at Ice Harbor Dam in 2006, which compared the
ITB test results to USACE test results (using USACE’s data acquisition equipment
and conventional methods), HDC personnel reported to DOE BPA HOT committee that
the ITB was successful and requested funds to buy two more ITBs from ATECo – and
then inexplicably HDC personnel broke off all communication with ATECo.

Numerous subsequent FOIA requests to HDC and BPA learned
that internal politics from “higher-ups” at HDC had quashed this request in
favor of Government personnel attempting to duplicate the proven, commercially
available Index Test Box at government expense instead of buying the
commercially available, successfully field-test proven product from ATECo. This
led to numerous complaints of unethical conduct by Government personnel to IGs.
HDC then renamed their test instrument the Gate Blade Optimizer (GBO) to “get it
off the IG’s radar” so they could continue diverting money from ATECo’s contract
to fund this “in-house” project to duplicate ATECo’s proven ITB. Government
funds were again being expended on a government boondoggle instead of buying the
proven, commercially available product from the private sector. Success or
failure of the GBO is as of yet unknown. Despite 5 years of time and about
$3-million (allocated in the contract to purchase up to 320 ITBs from ATECo
after a successful “proof of concept” field test) diverted to fund the GBO
project, nothing of any consequence has been seen as of yet from
GBO.

Current
ATECo ITB Activities

Meanwhile - back in the private sector - in 2008,
a third generation of the ITB technology was merged with the PLC-based
hydroelectric turbine governors from North American Phoenix Energy Systems
(NAPES in Sheffield Wisconsin), and is currently in use at the Brookfield
Renewable Power (BRP) Clergue powerplant in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada.
ITB is also slated for use at BRP’s Gartshore powerplant on the Montreal River
after a scheduled runner upgrade in 2011.

In April 2010 Alstom Power of Grenoble France purchased
NAPES, but did not acquire the Intellectual Property rights to the ITB
technology. Negotiations are just now getting underway between Alstom and ATECo
to transfer this “not so new” technology to Alstom - a meeting schedule is
presently being worked out for the 4th quarter of
2010.

Government
Interest in ITB

ATECo has been in conversation with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory about ITB since 2006 (Mike Sale, and then Brennan Smith after Mike
retired) about this new test instrument and the new capabilities and methods it
offers. Lack of funds and a general disinterest in hydropower optimization have
always prevented any cooperative activity between ORNL and ATECo; Government
personnel are fully aware of ATECo’s ITB technology and the successful
demonstrations in 1987, 2005 & 2006 (that were all funded at DOE
expense).

To prove this
point - ORNL
sent a “Statement of Work” to ATECo 2-weeks ago requesting a proposal for a
specification for an ITB and a project plan to duplicate the ITB
as a government funded project. This author believes that any Intellectual
Property rights to the resulting device would have gone to the Government – this
SOW was rejected and a more appropriate arrangement was requested; ATECo
responded to the SOW with a proposal for ORNL to instead lease the thrice
proven, successful ITB for another field-test demonstration that
would again be funded by DOE at a site to be chosen by DOE. (If the site were to
be chosen by ATECo, it would be to continue with BRP’s powerplants in Canada
[Much of the power is actually sent to U.S. via a tie-line anyway.]. For DOE’s
benefit, this test work could be expedited by an infusion of funds from
DOE.

Test sites
within the U.S. have thus far been unavailable due to a lack of funding and a
general disinterest in hydroelectric turbine optimization or a “we’re already
doing that” response.

This author must credit the engineer at BRP in Sault Ste
Marie and another at NAPES that saw the potential benefits of the new ITB
technology and have been working with ATECo to bring this project to fruition,
albeit very slowly as they fit this work into an already busy work
schedule.

The ITB is proven successful technology, ready for
another demonstration field-test, but you don’t have to take my word for
it. Here is a listing of reports about the ITB by other
engineers:

(All of these and more reference materials on Kaplan
turbine optimization are available on the web at:

2. Lee’s evaluation led to BPA’s purchase of an ITB from
Woodward for testing at PGE-PHP-2. BPA’s offer to demonstrate this ITB at Bonneville Dam was rejected by USACE. Woodward acquired a U.S. Patent
to protect this new technology. The patent attorneys placed this author’s name
on the document.

Lack of sales prompted Woodward to shelve (and then
forget) the ITB, another good idea that slipped through the cracks. This
author quit Woodward to pursue the ITB project in a new start-up, the Actuation Test
Equipment Company. When Woodward’s patent expired, ATECo was
almost ready to take the re-developed ITB to market – when a call came in from
Lee Sheldon, who was then working at HDC (again) dealing with the fish mortality
problem. A Federal ESA lawsuit named BPA, USBR, HDC and NOAA Fisheries as
defendants in Portland’s Federal Court. Kaplan turbine efficiency is critical to
fish survival at turbine passage, so HDC engaged Lee to help index test and
optimize all of their 113 Kaplans in FCRPS. Lee recalled the earlier testing of
ITB in the 1980’s, and persuaded HDC to resume the ITB project.

8. USACE HDC purchased an ITB for evaluation, referring
to the subject device as a “prototype.” Contract negotiations took over 18
months because ATECo wanted to retain Intellectual Property rights to the
pre-existing ITB software that had been developed at private expense. The
“Optimizer Special License Agreement” on page 39 made a contractual agreement
possible; this clause reserved Intellectual Property rights of any pre-existing
software that was delineated by a U.S. Copyright to this author.

10. A field test at McNary Dam in December 2005 showed
the ITB worked to automatically index test a Kaplan turbine, but a few “software
bugs” were found that had to be fixed before a full deployment of the ITB could
be undertaken. ATECo’s test report is at this link:

Although some improvements can be made, the limits
algorithm for defining steady state criteria
functions

properly. The ITB monitors unit operation, determines
when unit is at steady state, and then begins
logging

data. It is anticipated the software bugs which caused
intermittent program crashes will be identified and

corrected. This being the case, the ITB should then be
capable of unattended, automated data logging of

“steady
state” turbine operation.

12. No test report was requested from ATECo regarding the
subsequent “parallel test” at Ice Harbor Dam in February 2006, and no
information was ever provided to this author as to the relative success or
failure of the project; HDC engineers simply broke off all communications.
Numerous FOIA requests have gleaned enough information from HDC and BPA internal
documents to show that all-along, HDC personnel had been claiming that
the “prototype” ITB was conceived and developed by Government personnel, and
that ATECo had simply constructed a prototype of the
ITB.

At the project’s end, when HDC was claiming rights to the
entire ITB technology (including the software source code) and demanding that
ATECo give all of it USACE, ATECo produced the “Special License Agreement” and
U.S. Copyright for the software source code, demanding the agreed-upon $750,000
payment before giving the software source code to HDC. Instead of paying this
agreed-upon, negotiated price out of the funds that were made available in the
contract, the remaining $3-million earmarked by the contract was diverted to an
internal project at HDC to reproduce ATECo’s ITB as a new Government project,
renamed the Gate Blade Optimizer (GBO) to hide what it really
was.

13. This author published a second article about the ITB
and its novel Constant Power testing method:

Since then, ATECo has been working with NAPES and BRP in
the private sector to deploy the ITB for index testing three horizontal Kaplan
bulb turbines and a vertical Kaplan turbine in Sault Ste Marie, Canada. About
6-months ago, Alstom Power purchased NAPES, without acquiring any rights to the
ITB technology that was already merged with their new governor system’s PLC.
Alstom has now set their sights on the ITB technology and a meeting
schedule is being developed for the 4th quarter 2010 as this is being
written.

The U.S. Government’s hydropower groups have had this
technology in their grasp on two occasions, and yet, like Aesop’s dog looking at it’s own
reflection, have let it slip away from
them. The current SOW from ORNL was another reach too far into the
private sector by Government personnel; the ITB technology may well become
unavailable when Alstom Power snatches it away on an exclusive contract, and
then reintroduces it into the United States as their own
product.

Conclusion

ATECo has a fully developed and thrice-field tested
automatic Index Test Box for Kaplan turbines, and would embrace an opportunity
to deploy a “production” model ITB for a field-test demonstration for DOE, as
suggested in your DE-FOA-000006. A test plan and firm prices for this exercise
are included in the proposal sent to ORNL just last week
at: